Scholarship in the humanities looks at complicated overlapping factors, which may INCLUDE the science but _also_ includes other possible sources of small-scale divisions.

It’s a tricky area here: Anthropology is a Science but History is a Humanity (Scholar).

It’s a study of a small area of the world and what seems to me more like small scale political division/clan behavior. Clans can surround anything, a religion, a soccer team… it doesn’t matter what.

It was a bit preachy of a final result and even the study … it… may have been good anthropology but it didn’t seem like good scholarship/humanities.

One of the differences between science and humanities is that science will look at a specific thing. Hypothesis, evidence, conclusion, then generalize.

Scholarship in the humanities looks at complicated overlapping factors, which may INCLUDE the science but _also_ includes other possible sources of small-scale divisions.

Reductionism.

It’s not that it’s not useful, but it struck me as an overly simplistic view of history.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


+ four = 9

Leave a Reply